All Activity

So why doesn't it refer to those sections? I would say it didn't refer to them because they don't exist. You quoted 56. The previous one about Utah polygamy is all the way back in 37 and guess what, it has no sources either about Utah polygamy divorce rates. I then kept going back and there are some that kind of mention Utah polygamy but most are focused on modern polygamy or other cultures. I don't find any source that indicates that Utah polygamy had worse of situations than monogamous relationships in Utah. But, that's ok, because I did go and find some. Here's 2 studies that use the Utah Population Database to examine mortality of infants, children, and adults. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?facet_department_t="Economics"&facet_format_medium_t="application%2Fpdf"&facet_setname_s="ir_etd"&id=1701242&rows=100&sort=sort_date_t+desc is a dissertation from 2019 and https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2026-044.pdf is a working paper from 2026. The dissertation was interesting because it looked at all ages. Page 45 has its hypothesis of adult mortality and points out that it couldn't prove or disprove the idea that polygamy made it worse for men or women. But it did show that if a man was more involved in the church (baptized, endowed, polygamous), his mortality went down. No sign that it affected women. Which is kind of contra what section 56 says. On page 72, it has the hypotheses if infant and child mortality. Two of them I found very interesting. The first one is that the older the father, the better off the infant/child was (discusses this more on page 74). I find it interesting because modern research has shown that the older the father is, the higher mortality of his kids are. But yet, somehow, in Utah polygamy, it was the opposite. And an older man also means he would already have more wives, so it might infer some relationship to polygamy (though the dissertation did try to split that out). The second one is that the more involved a husband or wife was in the church (baptism, endowed, polygamous), the higher the mortality rate. For instance (from page 71), if both parents are baptized and just one is endowed (so no polygamy yet), the infant mortality increased by 83% compared to non-baptized parents (aka non-Mormons). That is an odd result. And also kind of contra what section 56 says. The working paper focus solely on infant and child mortality. And it shows that polygamous relationships had higher infant mortality compared to monogamous relationships. But there is something funny in the data. If you look at Figure 2, it shows that a polygamous first wife has higher infant mortality than a monogamous wife, even in the first few births. Yet, men, on average, didn't enter polygamy till 11 years after first marriage (the dissertation talks about that). So, the first 2-3 infants for a polygamous first wife are in a monogamous relationship. There must either be some extreme outliers, something is coded wrong, or some other thing. And that makes me worry about both this study and the dissertation and any other study that might use the Utah Population Database. I, unfortunately, can't get access to the data (I have to be a real researcher) so I can't play around it with it.

Because I haven't seen evidence of dispassionate analysis. Calling the accused "rapists" is not dispassionate. Calling me a rape apologist for advocating for impartial and evidence-based evaluation of the topic is not dispassionate. Ignoring seemingly exculpatory evidence, or reframing it with no real basis for doing so, is not dispassionate. Calling all men "potential rapists" is not dispassionate. I'm about played out with your hectoring, Calm. You've made it clear what you think of me. Let's return to the topic of the thread, which at present includes the Cornell matter. Thanks, -Smac

They are men. You are a man. And yet I have no affinity with them. To the contrary, I find their behavior disgusting and depraved and evil. I'm just not sure it was rape. I have no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex. And what "way" is that? I think prejudice is bad, and we as Latter-day Saints ought to avoid it. I am disappointed, but no longer surprised, that you harbor this ugly sentiment. I would also disagree with ugly categorical prejudices against women if they were presented and/or endorsed/ratified here. If someone were to take, say, the number of female teachers caught in recent years having sexual relations with minor students and from them extrapolate that "All women are potential pedophiles," I would reject that on the same grounds as I have rejected the ugliness presented on this board. I think I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Objecting to prejudicial statements against men does not impair my ability to care about the welfare of women. In fact, I have that welfare in mind when I challenge folks like you on it. I think your ugly sentiment, and concepts similar to it, are doing real damage to the fabric of society. As a husband and father and brother, I am concerned about the welfare of women. And children, for that matter. This despite the fact that I am neither a woman nor a child. What a weird thing for you to say, Calm. There has not been "something similar." There's been an inversion of presumption of innocence. There has been a rush to judgment. There has been a mob mentality. Thanks, -Smac

And this is one reason why I think you are biased in this area. Because you insist on reading my posts over and over again as one sided, only addressing half of the behaviour when I go out of my way to state I am talking about both men and women being raped, being aggressors, etc. and use general terms. I see you do this with others, but since I know how I write things the best, my memory is strongest here. PS: there are other posters I have criticized in this way and seen criticized by others in other ways in the past. You are currently the only one that focuses on this so very much rather than just ignoring. I figure this is because being unbiased or nonracist, etc does matter a great deal to you and it’s not an automatic refusal to see it in yourself (not calling you racist here, just mean others do and it matters to you). This is a good thing, not a bad thing. So I spend more time responding to your responses than the flippant ones. You may not be intentionally asking for feedback, but it reads that way to me because of the time you spend on this and how you phrase it.

Or you might look at it as me only going to,dismissal when it happened over and over again….so I came to it after years of giving you the benefit of the doubt. And again this only applies to some topics.

But does that sentence apply to Jane Doe (who, by her own 2024 account, consented to the sexual contact that night)? Or does it only apply to the "potential rapists" portion of society? Is Jane Doe on this message board listening to the Law of Chastity or WoW discussion? No. Are the accused frag guys? Also no. Again: “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.” Does this apply to lessons drawn from Jane Doe's behavior? Or just from the "potential rapists?" I'm not. To that portion I would apply the Brethren's counsel against prejudice. We are living in strange times. Categorical denigrations about "all Black men" or "all gay men" or "all Muslim men" would seemingly never cross your lips, but somehow you are okay with an even broader, and less justified, categorical denunciation that "all men are potential rapists?" That's weird to see coming from observant Latter-day Saints, whom I think should know better. Weird, but no longer surprising. Pres. Nelson: "Today, I call upon our members everywhere to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice. I plead with you to promote respect for all of God’s children.” “The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children.” “Charity is the antidote to contention. Charity is the spiritual gift that helps us to cast off the natural man, who is selfish, defensive, prideful, and jealous. Charity is the principal characteristic of a true follower of Jesus Christ. Charity defines a peacemaker. … As charity becomes part of our nature, we will lose the impulse to demean others. We will stop judging others. We will have charity for those from all walks of life. Charity towards all men is essential to our progress.” Not really feeling a lot of respect coming out of your "all men are potential rapists" thing. Copious amounts of "demean," though. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

Yep….another emotional response. You don’t expect a fair hearing is being defensive. For good reason, but not dispassionate. And you are only in the dog house so to speak on some things, not everything btw.

That’s not the only thing that matters or the most important thing.

I think it would help if more people saw you as actually doing that rather than believing you are doing that. I think I am doing that. I have neither excused nor condemned the accused. I have found their text messages to be reprehensible and depraved and licentious. I don't know that they must be construed as an invitation to commit rape. I have also looked at, and accounted for, Jane Doe's 2024 statement, and her text message exchange with her roommates, and her text exchanges with some of the accused, and the statements from her dorm leader. I am taking these at face value. And even then, I have continued to be open to further evidence. I don't think you and most others have done this. Instead, there has been rage, a rush to judgment, an inversion of the presumption of innocence, and so on. I've been in the doghouse with you for a while now, so I don't really expect a fair hearing or assessment from you. I've tried hard to dispassionately assess the evidence. That may yield assessments that a "all men are potential rapists" sort of person is not going to want to hear. You look at the frat guys and say "See? See?!." I am attempting to look at the evidence impartially, which has resulted in "Hey, Jane Doe has previously said and done quite a bit that indicates consent was present, and that contradicts her current allegations, so perhaps we ought to pump the brakes, refrain from a rush to judgment, let the investigation play out, and let the normative presumption of innocence abide." And that has resulted in various and repeated accusations that I am a rape apologist, with nary a peep or tut-tut from you. Again, no expectation of a fair hearing or assessment from you. At some point you might be able to allow for disagreement and characterize it as such, rather than as "dismissal." And what "conclusions?" The ones labeling the accused as rapists and me as their apologist/defender? The ones that I have proposed be stayed or postponed pending more investigation and evidence? Except I haven't reached any conclusions. To the contrary, I have proposed that we refrain from rushing to judgment, maintain the presumption of innocence, set aside emotionalisms, let the investigation play out, let further evidence and analysis develop, and then start to reach some conclusions. I've done this before (I recall some nasty sentiments expressed in the McKenna Denson matter), and I often catch a lot of flak for it. I don't claim to be an emotionless automaton, but I do claim to be striving for dispassionate analysis. i've seen nothing like that from you or SU or Nehor. Lots of ugliness, ad hominem, etc., though. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, I meant the conference was 1884. And Peder's writing was 1883.

Ok, I'm fine with saying that Joseph never taught that you absolutely must be a polygamist to reach the highest kingdom. That could be something that Brigham later adds. But Hyrum was sealed to 2 women and so Joseph must have been teaching and practicing some form of polygamy. Brigham was in the same situation. So, an argument could be made that Joseph taught Brigham this and he then misinterpreted it and included living polygamy.

I can't go along with this. "Illegal alien" is a legal term. "Illegal migrant" is already a kindness (since they are, in legal parlance, "aliens" and not "migrants"). From Grok (asking about a distinction between "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant") Illegal alien is a legal term. “Illegal” is a derogatory slang term to reduce a person to their immigration status.

I have read that site. I've mentioned to you before that I very much dislike the site. it is very disorganized, it misuses sources, it doesn't provide sources, it sometimes makes up sources (I even went and bought one of the Whitney Horning's books because it referenced it and couldn't find the actual reference which was frustrating). The site could be good, but as it is, it is hard to understand the argument besides "polygamy is bad". I'm not really sure why you posted this. I completely agree that Joseph is very publicly vocal about it. So was everyone else. So if Brigham had died in Carthage, we would be debating whether is a polygamist. Also, Brigham Young excommunicated people for practicing unauthorized polygamy. William W. Phelps was excommunicated in 1847. I wasn't talking about a temporary commandment. I'm not even sure what the point of quoting this is. I was talking about how a person could make a vow with God and then change that vow because God told him to change. Also completely misunderstanding what I was talking about. Are you even trying to understand me or just toss out quotes from the site?

And yet your dispassionate assessment has omitted this fact in every post. As for very common you could have kept reading, but if you were indeed well read and informed on this topic as you claim you’d already know

I am. I agree. I agree. I can't go along with this. "Illegal alien" is a legal term. "Illegal migrant" is already a kindness (since they are, in legal parlance, "aliens" and not "migrants"). From Grok (asking about a distinction between "illegal alien" and "undocumented migrant") : That seems about right. I don't think the Law of Chastity "impacts gay and straight people equally." I think it applies equally. Nobody can engage in same-sex behavior. Most people don't want to, so that impact on them is negligible. Some do, so that impact is more potent. Same law, disparate impact. Yes, broad ugly stereotypes are indeed lacking in empathy, as they impute negative characteristics onto an entire category of persons, without regard to individual choice and conduct. "All men are potential rapists" is another not-very-empathetic sentiment. Looks like we may agree more than we disagree. Thanks, -Smac

If you are capable of judging your own posts as dispassionate (which is laughable to me, no one is that capable), then why can’t you grant others the ability to judge their own posts as not rage based? Two posters out of many. And yet that is what you see. What you choose to focus on. “Mobcratic” even.

At a minimum a dispassionate evidence approach would require that you at least acknowledge that downplaying sexual assault by a friend is extremely common. I acknowledge that it happens (I'm not sure what "extremely common" means) I deny doing it or anything like it. Embellished or false allegations of assault are also not uncommon. Do you acknowledge that? "Realization" begs the question. Hence the value in a dispassionate analysis. I think your assessment has been based on an inversion of the presumption of innocence and a general inability or unwillingness to dispassionately analyze the evidence. The rush to judgment seems to be emotion-based, not evidence-based. Thanks, -Smac

This reminds me of the treatment of young men who chose or could not go on missions in the past. Sure, no one said they were excluded from exaltation and I would say official doctrine officially rejected that, but girls and young women were being taught to marry returned missionaries, so that first off dropped the likelihood of a temple marriage for those who didn’t go. And while those who couldn’t go may not have been looked down on as sinners, they were pitied in my experience and that raised caution in thinking of them as marriage partners….if they couldn’t handle a mission, maybe they would have trouble with marriage. When one ideal is emphasized, it can too often make something else look less than, not ideal even when it may qualify as such.

Not really. The rush to judgment has not been reasoned or evidence-based. The presumption of innocence has been inverted. My calls for a dispassionate examination of the evidence have been met with ugly accusations from folks like Nehor and SU. To the extent this is all an extension of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment, I find that to be irrational and prejudiced. Patently. Thanks, -Smac

"We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years" Who are these certain extremists? It would be helpful to know of whom you speak? Evangelicals stand against extremism in all its forms. That is why the formed in the early 1940s and why they still exist today. I would not describe either Latter-Day Saints or "Evangelicals (white or otherwise) as the two most conservative religious populations. That is a bridge way too far. Perhaps Fundamentalist Mormons and Fundamentalist non-Mormon Christians are among the most conservative religious populations who are Christian. There certainly are more conservative religous groups like Salafist Islam that out-conservative conservative Christian groups. Of course, now we have to define Conservative, don't we? Russian Mennonites here in Chihuahua are certainly extremely conservative in many ways. They are neither Mormon, and in many cases are Fundamentalists rather than Evangelicals. Some in certain places here certainly are Evangelicals. There are many doctrinally conservative Presbyterians who are an interesting combination of Mainstream, Evangelical, and Fundamentalists, depending on who you are using the terms. Many of them are more conservative than the LDS, depending on how you use the term. There also is great variance in Conservativeness (is that a word) among Catholics. All of that is why I think we always need to define our terms prior to engaging in discussing the "other." I often find labels unhelpful, especially those that are meant to rank, normalize, generalize, dehumanize, other, and only. I am a White Evangelical (capital E). How am I lost? Somehow I don't think you are complimenting me; at least it doesn't feel that way.

Hi all, Please receive my confession: https://confessionoflog.blogspot.com/2026/10/my-confession.html Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

I bet they didn’t become monogamous wives either…. 😛

Labeling others’ reactions generally here as rage based over and over is an example of your own emotional posting.

They are men. You are a man. You want men to be talked about a certain way…or maybe it’s not talked about in certain ways. Probably both now I think of it. You do not always appear to be as cautious or caring about women if one looks at the amount of space you devote to concern about each and the emphasis you give when discussing the presumption of innocence in both cases. It’s not necessary that you be as concerned with women as men given you won’t encounter many of the same sorts of things that women encounter and it’s easy to assume you might encounter the same sort of stuff as other men. The problem is you presenting yourself as dispassionate when you do so, but label others as emotional or rage based when they do something similar. Your emphasis (the depth and amount of time you spend on this) and concerns about false accusations vs false acquittals is not dispassionate.

I am unaware of any definition of empathy out side of right wing talking points that requires acquiescence to a policy point of view. I will say that some points of view are inherently unempathetic. For example describing a 20 week fetus as a clump of cells. Or calling undocumented migrants “illegals”. Or saying that the law of chastity impacts gay and straight people equally. Or saying religious people are delusional. This does not require one to adopt an anti-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, or pro religious stance.